Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Amanda Knox Is Innocent

is it you? because I always thought you had some sense of perspective.
sorry, leaving thread for a bit. it's just making me sad. all this talk of "think of Meredith!" without realizing you're perfectly happy to condemn another young woman and young man for something with very little evidence they did and very, very strong evidence someone else did.
 
is it you? because I always thought you had some sense of perspective.
I still have that. It just differs to you at this time.


sorry, leaving thread for a bit. it's just making me sad. all this talk of "think of Meredith!" without realizing you're perfectly happy to condemn another young woman and young man for something with very little evidence they did and very, very strong evidence someone else did.

I don't think that is a fair analysis of what I have said on this thread at all.

From what I have seen/read etc, there is little to no evidence that AK killed MK...there is though some to suggest that she hasn't been telling the truth about the night before and the morning after in terms of her own whereabouts and actions, some of which appears to have halted the discovery or her murder. I'll leave others to speak for themselves.
 
is it you? because I always thought you had some sense of perspective.
sorry, leaving thread for a bit. it's just making me sad. all this talk of "think of Meredith!" without realizing you're perfectly happy to condemn another young woman and young man for something with very little evidence they did and very, very strong evidence someone else did.

Christ, you're being incredibly emotive and dramatic in some of your replies 'oh! I'm leaving this thread it's all just so sad how can you condemn these poor innocent people!?'

709812_f496.jpg


Get a grip. No one's 'perfectly happy' about any aspect of this case. I haven't seen anyone since I joined this thread say 'fuck 'em, they're guilty as hell' most people you're taking issue with are mainly pointing out huge fuck off discrepancies in Knox and Sollecito's stories, pointing out some forensics that may or may not point to their guilt and are generally discussing the case. Your mention of bringing up Kercher's family was an obvious dig at me as I'm the only person to mention it recently and you directly replied to it previously. I already explained why I posted it and I've already explained I'm not pro any one side or the other. You obviously decided to wilfully ignore that and instead insist people are happy to condemn two people, even though I've clearly stated I'm still non the wiser about their guilt or innocence.

You decided to, bizarrely, bring up a case that has fuck all to do with this in some sort of attempt to prove the entire Italian legal system is barking mad, you also felt the need to point out that the victim was American which, intentionally or not, shows your bias in assessing the Kercher case.

You're accusing everyone else of being emotive when you've been among the most emotive out of everyone these last few pages. Actually read what people are saying and try and do it without the emotional blinkers you seem to have on.
 
Last edited:

Thanks for posting that, it's very interesting. I'm taking it with a large pinch of salt because I don't know enough about the science though. For example, is it really the case that mentioning water indicates something sexual? But there is some stuff on there which rings absolutely true. I thought her statement was very weird indeed when I read it - completely tortured language, everything phrased passively and strangely - but I thought she was just a very bad writer. The analysis of her email is interesting too:

http://statement-analysis.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/amanda-knox-email-analyzed.html

...I had always thought the email read like someone trying to memorise an alibi rather than a genuine piece of communication.
 

TBF, SCA (as practiced in Germany's legal system, at least) is fairly narrowly-defined and rigourously practiced, and adheres as closely to "the scientific method" as is possible with something dealing with subjects rather than objects.
"Discourse analysis" as used over here, is somewhat more interpretive, and isn't "scientific", but it's still helpful in analysing the underlying currents in spoken or written communication, and giving pointers as to what may be more fruitful lines of investigation. What it doesn't do is produce solid evidence.
 
TBF, SCA (as practiced in Germany's legal system, at least) is fairly narrowly-defined and rigourously practiced, and adheres as closely to "the scientific method" as is possible with something dealing with subjects rather than objects.
"Discourse analysis" as used over here, is somewhat more interpretive, and isn't "scientific", but it's still helpful in analysing the underlying currents in spoken or written communication, and giving pointers as to what may be more fruitful lines of investigation. What it doesn't do is produce solid evidence.
It's a tool to be used for further investigation/questioning?
 
I've been reading "statement analyses" for two days now and I can't make up my mind on them. The main people involved seem to claim things which aren't true (credentials, accreditation, etc) and some of the stuff they highlight looks bollocks. But then, some of it seems OK, too.

Wikipedia is light on details and says it's been condemned as a psuedoscience, but Germany uses a similar kind of thing in their justice system.

The German criminal justice system uses SCA as an adjunct to investigation, both in terms of document scrutiny, and for analysis of spoken and written communications. It provides support for directing investigations and, to an extent, helping establish what motivated a particular communication or statement. it's a pattern-recognition process.
 
It's a tool to be used for further investigation/questioning?

It can be. It (discourse analysis generally) partially originated as a tool for deconstructing texts. SCA (Structured Content Analysis/Scientific Content Analysis) is a fairly restrictive toolkit for analysing content against personal and normative language-in-use.
To put it simply, an SC analyst does their thing with a transcript of a recorded interview or whatever, and should be able to determine, cross-referencing other communications by the same person, where the interviewee has deviated both from their own norms of speech and/or written communication, and from what you might call "basic language-in-use principles". This info can suggest to the authorities or the interviewer/interrogator where weak points in the interviewee's statement are located, so that the interviewer can probe them.

Hope that makes sense!
 
"I would say that there are thousands of Americans in jail today on the basis of far less evidence than there is against Amanda Knox," Dershowitz, a Harvard Law professor, said.

"One, she first admitted she was at the crime scene and then denied it. Second, she falsely accused somebody who was totally innocent of committing the murder. Third, she turned off her cell phone during the relative period of time. Fourth, there was DNA found underneath the bra strap and on the knife.

"It wasn't enough to establish conclusively that it was hers, but it certainly pointed in that direction. There was a pool of blood with a footprint and the man who was convicted of the murder blamed it on her, testified against her, the court found that it couldn't have been done by one person, it had to be done by at least two people."

But whether Italy can compel Knox — dubbed "Foxy Knoxy" by the press — to return is up in the air, according to Dershowitz.

"Legally, she should be required if her conviction is affirmed, but she has been conducting an incredibly successful media campaign," he said.

"I have to tell you, in 50 years of practicing law, I had never seen a more one-sided presentation by the media in the United States of the case. Everybody is saying there's no evidence against her and she's totally innocent. It's just not true."

In America, everybody's ignoring the victim, everybody is pretending as if the Italian court system is the Iranian court system, and as if they made up all of the evidence against her."

As to why he believes that is so, Dershowitz said:

"One word: she's pretty and she doesn't look like she did it and Americans care about what people look like. She's the all-American young woman and we don't care about the evidence."

"If I were the family of the victim here, I would be outraged at the way the American media is treating this case.''

Likewise, Dershowitz added, Knox should be outraged by the coverage of the case in Italy.

"They're treating this case as if she's Al Capone, as if there's no question about her innocence or guilt. It's become black and white. [In] Italy, she's guilty beyond any doubt. In America, she's innocent beyond any doubt," he said.

"The truth is it's a very close case. There's a lot of evidence of guilt, there's some evidence of innocence. On balance, it's more likely than not that she did, but there's not enough evidence to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt."

http://www.newsmax.com/NewsmaxTv/al...rder-trial/2014/01/31/id/550244#ixzz2sMGUWHdK
 
TBF, SCA (as practiced in Germany's legal system, at least) is fairly narrowly-defined and rigourously practiced, and adheres as closely to "the scientific method" as is possible with something dealing with subjects rather than objects.
"Discourse analysis" as used over here, is somewhat more interpretive, and isn't "scientific", but it's still helpful in analysing the underlying currents in spoken or written communication, and giving pointers as to what may be more fruitful lines of investigation. What it doesn't do is produce solid evidence.
Perhaps, but as written up on that blog, it is psuedoscientific nonsense. It contains a series of unsupported assertions, and a lot of the stuff it draws conclusions from one could put forward equally persuasive and arbitrary alternative explanations for, mostly 'she was nervous, ffs'.

I doubt that, under stress, I could tell the truth in a manner that would pass that person's tests. It does rather make me think of the quote 'sometimes a cigar is just a cigar'.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps, but as written up on that blog, it is psuedoscientific nonsense. It contains a series of unsupported assertions, and a lot of the stuff it draws conclusions from one could put forward equally persuasive and arbitrary alternative explanations for, mostly 'she was nervous, ffs'.

The blogger has pretty much "tried too hard" IMO. They've gone for finding meaning in individual words, rather than seeking to discern the meaning of the communication - they've sacrificed the context for a bit of grandstanding to illustrate their "phat content analysis skillz". What the blogger should have been doing was looking for internal consistency, then working off of any inconsistencies - stuff like changes of tense, shifts in perspective, deflection, etc.
Also, the system he's using (a rating scale for basically how odd he thinks a particular piece of word-use is) isn't (IMO) helpful. It positions you to think in pretty binary terms - a word is either of high importance or low importance - when you need to be addressing the document/transcript more holistically.
 
Yes, that makes sense. Mind you sometimes you can tell stuff from individual words. Tony Blair always signalled that he was about to lie by saying 'Frankly'; when he was about to tell a great big whopper, he said 'To be perfectly frank'. It's really quite a reliable one, that.
 
Yes, that makes sense. Mind you sometimes you can tell stuff from individual words. Tony Blair always signalled that he was about to lie by saying 'Frankly'; when he was about to tell a great big whopper, he said 'To be perfectly frank'. It's really quite a reliable one, that.

It's what one of the pioneers of interrogation (an Austrian criminologist named Hans Gross) called the 'habit of lying' and what poker players call a 'tell.' The process is relatively simple. You start off asking questions that the suspect knows you have the correct answers to. Nothing heavy, just little bits that they're perfectly happy to answer honestly. Then you slip in a question here and there to which you have the correct answer, but the suspect doesn't know you have it. If they answer those questions honestly then there's no problem. If they answer falsely and before every lie they do things like adjust their tie, run their hand through their hair or start drumming their fingers on the table then you can establish their particular 'habit of lying' and you'll have a better idea of when they're about to lie and perhaps how big a lie they're about to tell.
 
It's what one of the pioneers of interrogation (an Austrian criminologist named Hans Gross) called the 'habit of lying' and what poker players call a 'tell.' The process is relatively simple. You start off asking questions that the suspect knows you have the correct answers to. Nothing heavy, just little bits that they're perfectly happy to answer honestly. Then you slip in a question here and there to which you have the correct answer, but the suspect doesn't know you have it. If they answer those questions honestly then there's no problem. If they answer falsely and before every lie they do things like adjust their tie, run their hand through their hair or start drumming their fingers on the table then you can establish their particular 'habit of lying' and you'll have a better idea of when they're about to lie and perhaps how big a lie they're about to tell.
The important bit of this being that everyone will have different tells, so you need to go through this process to establish what they are. Seems to me like that blogger is attempting this kind of analysis 'blind'.

Not everyone who says 'frankly' is lying. Just Blair.
 
The important bit of this being that everyone will have different tells, so you need to go through this process to establish what they are. Seems to me like that blogger is attempting this kind of analysis 'blind'.

Not everyone who says 'frankly' is lying. Just Blair.
That's true, but there are also normal and abnormal ways of retelling a story. The need to explain away meaningless details implies guilt. I've been there myself when lying. I've had the excuse in my head already as I knew I'd be asked about something, then I have blurted out more than what I was asked and it sounds suspicious. "I had a stomach bug because I'd been to a bbq the day before and I must have had some dodgy chicken or something". etc etc.

Also, the thing that the bloggers mention about talking about thing that didn't happen. I don't subscribe to their theory that just because you say it didn't happen, then it did, but you have to admit that some of the way she describes things looks like more than just bad writing (of which she is clearly guilty).

and so i grabbed the mop from out closet and lef the house, closing and locking the door that no one had come back through while i was in the shower
I can't imagine ever saying something like that. I locked a door that no one came through? :hmm:
 
I can't imagine ever saying something like that. I locked a door that no one came through? :hmm:
Thing is, under situations of stress when talking to authority, people do end up saying things in strange ways. Nervousness, a desire to sound 'correct', a desire not to sound stupid - all kinds of things can feed into it. It's a reason why coppers can end up sounding so weird, even when they're not lying. They're talking in a way that they think they're supposed to talk to officials.

I really wouldn't read too much into it.
 
Thing is, under situations of stress when talking to authority, people do end up saying things in strange ways. Nervousness, a desire to sound 'correct', a desire not to sound stupid - all kinds of things can feed into it. It's a reason why coppers can end up sounding so weird, even when they're not lying. They're talking in a way that they think they're supposed to talk to officials.

I really wouldn't read too much into it.
It was an email to her family and friends.
 
It was an email to her family and friends.
Oh ok. Didn't realise that. In that case, it's the written word, and some people are not good at writing naturally. I'd read even less into it if it's an email. In fact, I would read absolutely nothing into it at all. And applying the level of analysis used on that blog to an email is absurd, imo.

Many people mangle language when they write. It's nothing more than a reflection of their writing ability.
 
Oh ok. Didn't realise that. In that case, it's the written word, and some people are not good at writing naturally. I'd read even less into it if it's an email. In fact, I would read absolutely nothing into it at all. And applying the level of analysis used on that blog to an email is absurd, imo.

Many people mangle language when they write. It's nothing more than a reflection of their writing ability.
She's clearly not a very good writer, which is surprising considering she's written a book, is an "obsessive diarist" and studied linguistics at university.
 
Even in the appeal court judgement which disallowed the luminol footprints to used as evidence they say that Meridith's blood was present.

Page 17 of the report which I linked you to earlier.



Fair enough but the final line in the para you selected it states unequivocally that none of it had any value as evidence - so why continue return to areas of the investigation already disproved?
 
Fair enough but the final line in the para you selected it states unequivocally that none of it had any value as evidence - so why continue return to areas of the investigation already disproved?
I didn't. I was just pointing out that your claim it was an urban myth was absolute bollocks. If you look at what you quoted, I even say it was disallowed as evidence.

It clearly was Meridith's blood though, and Knox's footprints, as the text in the judgement demonstrates.
 
Listen to yourself.

What do you mean listen to myself? Read this fucking link, the same one I posted earlier that you chose to ignore. I'm only going on what that judge said, you know? The judge that's looked at EVERY fucking aspect of the case? I'll repeat...I'm not a judge, neither are you and neither is anyone else here. Jesus Christ how difficult is it to understand that scathingly obvious point?
 
She's clearly not a very good writer, which is surprising considering she's written a book, is an "obsessive diarist" and studied linguistics at university.

It would be interesting at this stage to read the story she wrote on her blog, before the murder, which was about a violent rape of a drugged girl.
 
What do you mean listen to myself? Read this fucking link, the same one I posted earlier that you chose to ignore. I'm only going on what that judge said, you know? The judge that's looked at EVERY fucking aspect of the case? I'll repeat...I'm not a judge, neither are you and neither is anyone else here. Jesus Christ how difficult is it to understand that scathingly obvious point?

For you to introduce the conjuring of yet another motive (the 4th) 5 years after conviction in order to show that the conduct of the investigation/trial/verdict is beyond reproach is frankly bonkers, (especially as you describe yourself as 'neutral').
That the judge went public with it, entirely contrary to his own rules is a further bizarre demonstration of the entire administration being in a tailspin.
 
Last edited:
I didn't. I was just pointing out that your claim it was an urban myth was absolute bollocks. If you look at what you quoted, I even say it was disallowed as evidence.

It clearly was Meridith's blood though, and Knox's footprints, as the text in the judgement demonstrates.

It was disallowed as evidence in 2009 yet up to 2011 it was still being presented on wiki as Gradgrind fact. Which is probably why the description of it as 'urban myth' was considered apt.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom